User talk:Cloudy176/Croutonillion
How about adding this to the beginning of the page? --I want more 09:10, December 27, 2012 (UTC) More guidelines? take your time to think for a new guidelines. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 13:27, April 27, 2013 (UTC) madness... if we ever create set theory 2nd order we will beat easily Croutonillion! Konkhra (talk) 03:23, April 29, 2013 (UTC) Croutonillion is not a constant! Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 00:21, May 4, 2013 (UTC) :Both references to lynz and Clarkkkkson have dates given, so they are constant too. Or maybe I'm missing something else? LittlePeng9 (talk) 08:02, May 4, 2013 (UTC) According to a recent news article, a sound frequency of exactly croutonillion hertz has incredible healing powers! FB100Z • talk • 08:51, September 24, 2013 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure no scientific experiment has found negative effects of these soundwaves. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:36, September 24, 2013 (UTC) Now, let's define a function Cro(). Cro(0) = Googoltriplex and then Cro(1) = Croutonillion and so on... But, according to step 168, we apply the Iota function. Therefore, Croutonillion is now infinite (HA! (Oh, and, don't specify the place. That way, it will be infinite :P)) :) King2218 (talk) 07:33, March 20, 2014 (UTC) Upper bound I guess that croutonillion is less than \(f_{\alpha+\omega}(100)\), where \(\alpha\) is the Rayo's ordinal. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 14:14, March 28, 2014 (UTC) :Let me add in a nice Rayo hierarchy. King2218 (talk) 14:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that humanity will invent a function that grows faster than Rayo's function within hundred years. But croutonillion uses a Iota function in the far future! Wythagoras (talk) 16:56, March 28, 2014 (UTC) :New notations come almost every day, what a hundred years?! Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 19:12, March 28, 2014 (UTC) :They already did. \(\text{FOOT}>^*\text{Rayo}\). 08:12, November 29, 2017 (UTC) Definition of AArex array notation what is the definiton of aarex array notation is it aleaf http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/ALEAF :No! The right link is https://sites.google.com/site/aarexnumbers/aan. AarexTiaokhiao 22:11, March 28, 2014 (UTC) ::If http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/ALEAF is not the right link, then it's time to update the article. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 01:14, March 29, 2014 (UTC) :::Cloudy, your're confusing two notations: ALEAF and AAN. Wythagoras (talk) 07:39, March 29, 2014 (UTC) ::: what about https://sites.google.com/site/mybeaf/ Current definition The current definition of Croutonillion contains FGH with unspecified fundamental sequences (i.e. for Goucher's ordinal), many functions by Aarex with ill definition (i.e. Aarexhydra(x)), and senseless things like in step 528. Also, all steps from 378 to 506 are too similar and this avoids our first rule on the page. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 06:14, April 6, 2014 (UTC) :Also, look at this part: it requires the definition of Hyper-E notation for non-integers. 601 X+1 602 X+0.1 603 X+1/Finaloogol 604 X+1/C11 605 E100#^{1337}X Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 06:15, April 11, 2014 (UTC) :King's corrections are good. We must remove all ambiguous steps. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 16:07, July 23, 2014 (UTC) ::Okay, you may revert my edit, but people once got angry at me beacause I removed the ambiguous steps. Wythagoras (talk) 16:03, July 23, 2014 (UTC) :::They're just extremely stubborn. King2218 (talk) 10:10, July 24, 2014 (UTC) croutonillion will be in part 5 of my number list Towards the end of course. It'll end about like so: *Rayo's number *Some retorts to Rayo *Fish number 7 *Croutonillion *Croutonillion and one *211 croutonillion 17 vigintillion 7 sextillion and one *Hollom's number *Sam's number *Robinson number *Infinity (as in omega) *Infinite numbers (the ordinals, cardinals, and stuff) *Absolute infinity (as in the end of Sbiis's forbidden list) *Sam's cardinal (a bullshit infinite number similar to Sam's number) WikiRigbyDude (talk) 02:53, September 6, 2014 (UTC) :How about Sam's Robinson number? Wythagoras (talk) 18:23, September 23, 2014 (UTC) ::Sam's number is English-indescribable. (probably a paradox), and it's \(E(E,E)\) (analogue of \(I(\alpha,\beta)\) but for cardinals indescribable in English). 11:01, December 19, 2017 (UTC) Fish function Because Fish functions with version numbers higher than 7 are not defined, I think that step 2061 has to be removed. -- 20:13, September 22, 2014 (UTC) :Now step 1217. --Nayuta Ito (talk) 06:34, July 3, 2016 (UTC) Question from Flavio (Originally on Croutonillion by Flavio61, moved here by LittlePeng9) How many steps can system allows to create?10.000? 100.000? Thks to anyone Who will be so kind and answer.flavio :Depends on the browser, probably at least 2.15 billion for most modern systems. LegionMammal978 (talk) 13:31, June 17, 2016 (UTC) ... what happened to the homestuck picture at the top of the page? Cookiefonster (talk) 13:53, April 20, 2015 (UTC) : It's gone. LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:50, April 20, 2015 (UTC) ::why was it removed Cookiefonster (talk) 22:09, April 20, 2015 (UTC) :::That is Vel's response for you removing most of the pictures from PGLN1 (and some more). sorry -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 06:12, May 11, 2015 (UTC) crouton If you remove the 103X+3 step, the resulting number can be called a "crouton". } :well,since that's short scale I'll invoke my Epstein system on it and make 1,000,000crouton6X a croutonillio-illion. 23:39, September 24, 2017 (UTC) Fun fact Since we know that BEAF beyond legiattic arrays isn't well-defined, this number isn't too because it uses the meameamealokkapoowa oompa in its definition. Not a big loss anyway Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 15:29, June 26, 2015 (UTC) :pretty much (note: that's not the only ill-defined part in the definition) King2218 (talk) 20:41, June 26, 2015 (UTC) SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA IS ILL-DEFINED TOO! I see this now uses my norminal fuction. Whoever done it forgot to log in, though. KthulhuHimself (talk) 08:54, November 9, 2015 (UTC) Oh, it was me. -- From the googol and beyond -- 18:36, November 13, 2015 (UTC) ill-definedness Some of the process can be ill-defined. *Does "xennaplex" in step 4 refer to xennillion? *15-3. Is that really well-defined? (at least it's uncomputable) *54. Does that chain really halt?(it's not even defined officially) *101 and 102. what is "Arx?" (I've only read up to C4, so I'm not sure if this is all) --Nayuta Ito (talk) 10:16, June 15, 2016 (UTC) :Well, this is total anarchy. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 13:10, June 15, 2016 (UTC) Legionmammal what do the alphanumeric entries ending with =_64 mean? ie. your edit for step 230 i have no clue what EhiUu6McLfiNd3bQ9I062NFfOpcKAT9mZefJ/KoIB89xuMQ2KC2C8rS6MR2YylU means Chronolegends (talk) 22:49, June 16, 2016 (UTC) :They don't all and with =_64, the = is part of the number; I'm trying to denote Base64 notation so the numbers won't go off the screen (we have no numprint package or equivalent). edit: That's also why I put all Base64-encoded numbers in \texttt font. LegionMammal978 (talk) 10:41, June 17, 2016 (UTC) :i prefer old version with complete Numbers instead base64 notation....could it be possibile restore them?flavio61 :: Sorry, but the math renderer won't split large numbers over multiple lines. If I did use regular (decimal) numbers, then they would go off the page and you would only be able to see the leading digits. LegionMammal978 (talk) 19:47, June 19, 2016 (UTC) There are plenty ways to go around this, such as converting to scientific notation, attempting to factorize, etc.., alphanumeric base 64 seems quite inelegant.Chronolegends (talk) 20:32, June 19, 2016 (UTC) :I've tried already. Lossless scientific notation wouldn't change the length, and factorization proves implausible due to the sheer size of these numbers. I've also attempted to rewrite these numbers in bases b\leq10^{10} , with minimal improvement. However, I'm currently experimenting with offsets from large powers to shorten the numbers further. edit: These don't appear to work either :( LegionMammal978 (talk) 21:52, June 19, 2016 (UTC) ::Why don't we just avoid using the math tags on these steps? -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 06:02, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :::Just had an idea for the format: " N^X , where N= ". I'll get working on it. LegionMammal978 (talk) 14:08, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :why on page where appear Croutonillion steps many of them do not show complete list about how they are composed? I wish to print the complete list but unable to do...can someone send me the list i ask to flavio.cigarini@gmail.com? Thks a lot :can be restored the deleted steps into Croutonillion list?the one who deleted them shoul restore them in old form until he will be able to modify them...thks flavio61 ::No. AarexWikia04 - 23:59, August 31, 2016 (UTC) Hello! I was just wondering what Croutonillion is in up arrow notation, Conway Chain notation, and hyper E notation. Thank you. JTOnstead20 (talk) 00:15, September 1, 2016 (UTC) :It is impossible to expressed with EVERY FUNCTIONS AND NOTATIONS. AarexWikia04 - 12:06, September 1, 2016 (UTC) Croutonillion is approximately 3↑Croutonillion Arrows↑3, 10→10→10→Croutonillion and E10#Croutonillion respectively(Chronolegends (talk) 23:26, September 1, 2016 (UTC)) :How about FOOT? AarexWikia04 - 00:00, September 2, 2016 (UTC) Croutonillion is approximately FOOT(Croutonillion). Dont want to take my word for it? Step 1085 employs FOOT(RAYO(SGC(stuff(x))) and then later, steps 1150 through 1207 invoke repetition of the full steps list(which includes 1085). There are several other steps which also invoke full list repetiton, such as the notable 2060 which builds upon this process to construct a BEAF & chain. Dont forget the foot hierarchy in 2130. So yeah FOOT(Croutonillion)~Croutonillion Chronolegends (talk) 00:37, September 2, 2016 (UTC) :Infinite... AarexWikia04 - 00:00, September 3, 2016 (UTC) At the step 2253, what about "repeat" steps? (they do not have growth rate)--Nayuta Ito (talk) 05:11, December 30, 2016 (UTC) BIG FOOT comparison If you removed all the steps that involve FOOT and all of the steps that are not well-defined, would the number be smaller or bigger than BIG FOOT? In such variant, bigfoot > croutonillion Chronolegends (talk) 03:58, November 8, 2016 (UTC) Proposal When editing the croutonillion, i percieve a huge performance hit, i've tried in several computers and internet connections, and i don't see it in other pages. I doubt its the article length thats causing it, i suspect the image steps make the editor heavier to load, but i'm not sure. would you guys be ok with it if i took them out. (Chronolegends (talk) 20:53, January 14, 2017 (UTC)). :My suggestion regarding dealing with lag on this page is to never ever open this page. Works fine for me so far. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:40, January 14, 2017 (UTC)I am not being serious please spare me :I don't think it's the images, it's mainly all the MathJax. Wasn't this bad before it got MathJax-ified. LegionMammal978 (talk) 22:34, January 14, 2017 (UTC) : Well we could reverse the mathjax for steps that dont "really" need it and keep it for steps that do. Steps using alot of superscript/subscript do look bad without it, but some steps like BB(X) or X+401 really only gain bold font. 'Chronolegends (talk) 21:12, January 24, 2017 (UTC) ' I made it well-defined! I added the last step (step 2563) so that the number is well-defined. I know I made the number reallyreallyreally small, but I wanted it to be well-defined. Are you mining my making the last step? --Nayuta Ito (talk) 03:17, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Doesn't work, because step 10 involves an undefined number Pellucidar12 (talk) 18:18, January 30, 2017 (UTC) An error At step 223, there's no appearance of \(X\). Is this an error? 19:26, November 19, 2017 (UTC) :I think this is fine, considering the appearance of \(C_1\) through \(C_4\) (in particular, \(C_4 = 10^{3X+3}\)). -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 11:40, November 20, 2017 (UTC) ::And is \(\Omega\) meaning \(\Gamma_0\), or \(\omega_1\) at step 294? Because uncountable ordinals don't always have fundamental sequences, even if they're limit! I think it's \(\Gamma_0\). 18:07, December 15, 2017 (UTC) Why remove the gif? rip gif LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:04, May 7, 2018 (UTC) : Why add the gif in the first place? PsiCubed2 (talk) 15:07, May 7, 2018 (UTC) ::Because it accurately expresses what that number is. This is userspace anyways, not mainspace, so jokes should be allowed here :P LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:18, May 7, 2018 (UTC) ::This gif was originally added in some very old revision of the page (back in 2014) and was around for a while; for some reason I've thought the gif was there all the time and only you have removed it now; now I see it was the unregistered user who has brought it back just today. LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:41, May 7, 2018 (UTC)